Hate crimes bill goes to Obama for signature

yizuman

yizuman

Active Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2008
Messages
2,345
Reaction score
2
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate passed groundbreaking legislation Thursday that would make it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.

The expanded federal hate crimes law now goes to President Obama's desk. Obama has pledged to sign the measure, which was added to a $680 billion defense authorization bill.

President George W. Bush had threatened to veto a similar measure.

The bill is named for Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming teenager who died after being kidnapped and severely beaten in October 1998, and James Byrd Jr., an African-American man dragged to death in Texas the same year.

"Knowing that the president will sign it, unlike his predecessor, has made all the hard work this year to pass it worthwhile," said Judy Shepard, board president of the Matthew Shepard Foundation named for her son. "Hate crimes continue to affect far too many Americans who are simply trying to live their lives honestly, and they need to know that their government will protect them from violence, and provide appropriate justice for victims and their families."

Several religious groups have expressed concern that a hate-crimes law could be used to criminalize conservative speech relating to subjects such as abortion or homosexuality.

Attorney General Eric Holder has asserted that any federal hate-crimes law would be used only to prosecute violent acts based on bias, as opposed to the prosecution of speech based on controversial racial or religious beliefs.

Holder called Thursday's 68-29 Senate vote to approve the defense spending bill that included the hate crimes measure "a milestone in helping protect Americans from the most heinous bias-motivated violence."

"The passage of this legislation will give the Justice Department and our state and local law enforcement partners the tools we need to deter and prosecute these acts of violence," he said in a statement.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, called the measure "our nation's first major piece of civil rights legislation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people."

"Too many in our community have been devastated by hate violence," Solmonese said in a statement. "We now can begin the important steps to erasing hate in our country."

This month, Obama told the Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest gay rights group, that the nation still needs to make significant changes to ensure equal rights for gays and lesbians.

"Despite the progress we've made, there are still laws to change and hearts to open," he said during his address at the dinner for the Human Rights Campaign. "This fight continues now, and I'm here with the simple message: I'm here with you in that fight."

Among other things, Obama has called for the repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. He also has urged Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and pass the Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act.

The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage, for federal purposes, as a legal union between a man and a woman. It allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages. The Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act would extend family benefits now available to heterosexual federal employees to gay and lesbian federal workers.

More than 77,000 hate-crime incidents were reported by the FBI between 1998 and 2007, or "nearly one hate crime for every hour of every day over the span of a decade," Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June.

The FBI, Holder added, reported 7,624 hate-crime incidents in 2007, the most current year with complete data.
Click to expand...

Source: Hate crimes bill goes to Obama for signature - CNN.com

Here's what's doubtful for me, that a hate crime charge being used against non-white suspects.

Yiz
 
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate passed groundbreaking legislation Thursday that would make it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.
Click to expand...

Yes! Finally! :mrgreen:
 
sallylou said:
The hate crime statute is used to charge non-white suspects.

In 2007, there were 749 anti-white crimes (9.8%).

Anti-black 34.9%
Religious bias 18.4%
Sexual orientation 16.6%
Ethnicity 13.2%

http://www.civilrights.org/publications/hatecrimes/lccref_hate_crimes_report.pdf

There is plenty of hate to go around.
Click to expand...

Pretty low considering, but with so much going on, I guess it's safe to say not all hate crimes are recognized because not all crimes are very obvious.

Another thing, this happens often as well, how many hate crimes often go UNREPORTED? Sad, but that does happen. I'd like to see what the unreported crimes actually are that could make up the numbers that we see above now.

Yiz
 
Here's where the above linked above linked article goes wrong in it's logic:

While it is not possible to punish a criminal thought in and of itself, when that particular thought process is directly tied to a criminal act, and shows intent, it most certainly can be prosecuted. It is done on a daily basis in our criminal justice system.
 
kokonut said:
Thought police - More feel-good 'hate crime' legislation from Congress.
EDITORIAL: Thought police - Opinion - ReviewJournal.com

Pretty much it.
Click to expand...

So, you think that if you go after a person because you needed to rob should be treated the same as if you go after a person just because of his religion, say... Christianity?

Intentions vary. And when you intend to attack a person because of religion, sexual orientation, and race, then you deserve to be punished more severely than what you would to a person because you want to steal something or that you want to beat that guy because he screwed your wife.

Big difference.

And it's amazing that Christians have "special rights" while gays have NONE. When they're beaten based on sexual orientation, the bashers get away lightly. When a Christian is beaten based on religion, the basher gets stiff punishment.

Hmm... ok?
 
netrox said:
So, you think that if you go after a person because you needed to rob should be treated the same as if you go after a person just because of his religion, say... Christianity?
Click to expand...
If by "go after" you mean physically assault, then yes, they should both be prosecuted for assault.

Intentions vary. And when you intend to attack a person because of religion, sexual orientation, and race, then you deserve to be punished more severely than what you would to a person because you want to steal something or that you want to beat that guy because he screwed your wife.
Click to expand...
Criminals who do more harm should be punished more severely, regardless of the reason they did harm.

A person who is beaten to a pulp during a robbery hurts just as much as a person who is beaten to a pulp for a "hate" reason.

Big difference.

And it's amazing that Christians have "special rights" while gays have NONE. When they're beaten based on sexual orientation, the bashers get away lightly. When a Christian is beaten based on religion, the basher gets stiff punishment.

Hmm... ok?
Click to expand...
What law says that Christians have "special rights?" Do you have any proof that people who beat up Christians just because they are Christians receive stiffer sentences than people who beat up other people for whatever reason?
 
It does amazing when people don't understand about hate crime bill. :roll:
 
kokonut said:
Sounds like double jeopardy to me.
Click to expand...

Then you have a mistaken idea of what double jeopardy is.:roll: It doesn't relate to double jeopardy in the least.

Just like murder charges carry different degrees according to intent, this would give assualt charges different degrees according to intent.

The only reason I can see for anyone to oppose such a bill is that they don't feel a homosexual deserves the same degree of justice a herterosexual does.
 
Reba said:
If by "go after" you mean physically assault, then yes, they should both be prosecuted for assault.


Criminals who do more harm should be punished more severely, regardless of the reason they did harm.

A person who is beaten to a pulp during a robbery hurts just as much as a person who is beaten to a pulp for a "hate" reason.


What law says that Christians have "special rights?" Do you have any proof that people who beat up Christians just because they are Christians receive stiffer sentences than people who beat up other people for whatever reason?
Click to expand...

And the person who severely beats someone during a robbery faces a different degree of charge than does the person who does not harm their victim. That is what the hate crimes bill provides for. A greater degree of culpability when it is determined that the assualt was for no other reason than group membership.
 
*reading some posts*

this is comedy of errors in here....
 
Back
Top